Germany Solar Installations May Have Tripled in First Quarter (1800 MW)

German solar installations may have more than tripled in the first quarter from a year ago, the country’s deputy environment minister said.

“The first quarter had big installations,” Katherina Reiche said today in an interview during an informal meeting of ministers in Denmark. “It is assumed that nearly 1,800 megawatts were installed.”

Germany added 513 megawatts in the same period last year, according to the Bundesnetzagentur grid regulator.

Chancellor Angela Merkel seeks to cut by half the pace of annual solar installations after incentives for the industry pushed new projects to a record 7.5 gigawatts last year, more than double a target. Subsidy cuts, still going through parliament, would take effect April 1, about a year after Merkel decided to exit nuclear generation and replace reactors with a mix of renewable and more efficient fossil-fuel plants.

4. Why are you so desperate to badmouth renewable energy?

Does the fact that there are financial incentives involved change anything when the discussion is about the capability of a supply chain and labor force to deliver change to our energy system?

I don't think so. No matter how large the incentives nuclear can't ramp up production and bring dozens of reactors next year, or the next or the next or the next of the next or the next or the next or the next of the next or the next or the next or the next of the next...

5. Why do you misread correction of error to be "badmouthing"?

Does the fact that there are financial incentives involved change anything when the discussion is about the capability of a supply chain and labor force to deliver change to our energy system?

When did that become what the conversation was about?

"In one relatively small country" is both inaccurate (it's the world's 5th largest economy) and misdirected (since Germany has been by far the world's most aggressive installer of solar while you're hinting it's just run-of-the-mill).

It also doesn't inform much on what the possible growth rate is because (as I pointed out) the growth rate in December was MUCH higher. If anything, THAT would be the indicator of capacity.

No matter how large the incentives nuclear can't ramp up production and bring dozens of reactors next year, or the next or the next or the next of the next or the next or the next or the next of the next or the next or the next or the next of the next...

Why on earth would that matter? Cities don't get built in a year either. Planning for the electrical needs of a civilization is necessarily done many years in advance (even decades).

Then of course there's the constant error on your part re: production capacity relative to what actually gets put into service.

Remember that nonsense you tried to sell about China along producing 35 GWs of solar cells in 2011 and I pointed out to you that the expected global demand was between 19-22 GWs? Remember who turned out to be right?

Regardless... there's nothing in the post you replied to that "badmouths" solar energy. If anything, it badmouths inconsistent governmental policy that causes entire industries to swing from profit to huge loss on a whim. It also "badmouths" a story that makes it look like solar installs in Germany are on the rise when the reality is that they're in (temporary) collapse. It has not thing one to do with whether or not I like the idea... it simply corrects an error.

6. How do you feel about the $8.3 BILLION in gov't loan guarantees to build news nukes

7. You mean apart from wishing they would lose 1% of it

in my backyard?

I feel the same as I do for solar/wind incentives. The cleaner technologies cost more than the dirty ones and we need to design a system that still encourages new generation to move in the right direction. That could be carbon taxes or any number of incentives. Loan gurantees could be one of the cheaper options.

9. Except that there is no path for that nuclear plant to shut down ANY coal plants.

The owners plan to keep increasing coal consumption, not decreasing it. Meanwhile, the nuclear plant will ensure that renewables, which do have a clear economic path for shutting down fossil fuel plants, will now not be able to deploy in the area because the nuclear plant will soak up all of the potential market for renewables by mandated purchase rather than by competition.

10. The southeast is an area of rapid growth.

The plants that are "replaced" are the new ones that now wont get built.

Meanwhile, the nuclear plant will ensure that renewables, which do have a clear economic path for shutting down fossil fuel plants, will now not be able to deploy in the area because the nuclear plant will soak up all of the potential market for renewables by mandated purchase rather than by competition.

What an interesting fantasy. So in your world it isn't renewables that require mandated purchases, its the baseload generators?

17. Of course thats the goal.

But your position is pretty ridiculous (if transparent). Its clear that you believe that (simplified) the "right" solution is 100% renewables and any other new construction is merely a roadblock to that correct action... but the rest of us have to live in the real world.

If a power company needs to expand from 20 GWs to 30 GWs over the next decade, they arent going to be closing any plants early unless they build past that higher target. Adding 2 GWs of nuclear means that they arent adding 2GWs of gas or coal. The power is going to get generated because the population/economic growth demands it. You can whine that the nuclear power means less chance for your prefered options... but you cant rationally pretend that it facilitates keeping the coal. As in Germany, if they changed their mind and dumped Vogtle, the coal plants expected lives would only increase.

Do you honestly believe that anyone is going to buy that demand expectations for the next couple decades are actually falling?

Look... NCWARN has to spin... we all understand that. They dont have a rhetorical leg to stand on so they have to make stuff up (like increasing the concrete foundation of a reactor by 1-3 inches is a new risk that requires public hearings and revisiting the liscense). Its the standard BS that used to work to delay nuclear power - we all get it. But don't expect anyone to fall for it. We're just being polite.

18. That is a lot of misinformation in one post, Baggins;

1) There is no forecast increase from 20GW to 30GW.
2) Adding 2GW of nuclear means they are re-enforcing the economics which are favorable to coal. The nuclear plants do nothing to shut down coal plants.
3) Adding $20 billion dollars worth of efficiency and renewables WOULD act to shut down both coal and natural gas plants as well as put downward pressure on all prices.
4) We've seen time after time, around the world and consistently over many decades of time, that the nuclear industry depends heavily on exaggerating demand when seeking to build a plant. The corollary is that IF the plant ever gets built they are obligated to institute business practices that promote electricity use. This not only helps pay for the nuclear plant but it ensures the continued operation of the coal plants.

Do you know what an IRP is?

NEWS RELEASE

Utility Forecasts Contradict Pervasive PR

Arguments for new nuclear, coal plants ignore years of flat growth, rising rates, and a restructured economic future

Statement by Director Jim Warren:

Durham, NC – Since early 2006, southern power companies have seared into the public mind the notion that electricity demand has grown unfettered for many years and will continue to do so far into the future. Public officials and others have adopted the "2% per year" growth mantra while echoing utility arguments for building coal and nuclear power plants so we can "keep the lights on."

One problem: The 2% growth figure is a gross exaggeration and has been for many years. And it won’t even be approached for the foreseeable future – according to the utilities’ own data.

In North Carolina, the utilities’ PR line is belied by their elaborate Integrated Resource Plans (IRPs) filed most recently in September with the NC Utilities Commission. As the IRPs show, both Duke Energy and Progress Energy have experienced nearly flat growth in electricity demand for many years. And with each annual IRP filing over the years, both companies have lowered most of their successive projections of electricity needed far into the future.

Still, in public and private meetings, officials for both Duke and Progress continue to chant "growth‑growth‑growth" so they can justify gambling customers' money on new power plants. Recently a representative of The Shaw Group – builder of large power plants – repeated the "2% annual growth" line several times at meetings of the Baseload Committee of the Energy Policy Council, on which I served, as Duke and Progress officials nodded their endorsement.

And despite years of low growth, ongoing restructuring of the national and state economies, and a certainty that soaring power bills from new nuclear plants would result in what regulators call "demand destruction" – where customers cut usage as power gets more expensive – in September both Duke and Progress told the Utilities Commission to expect vigorous growth far into the future.

Accurate and realistic forecasts matter. Here are the facts: *

From the IRPs: Progress’s actual retail sales grew only 0.3% annually from 2000-2009, and Duke’s grew only 0.7% annually from 1994-2009.
From the IRPs:
- The utilities’ sales projections have continuously decreased over the years. Between its 2005 and 2010 IRPs, Duke’s forecasts for peak demand in 2015 decreased by 20.4%, and during the same time, the projections for 2025 decreased by 2%. Between Progress’s 2005 and 2010 IRPs, the company showed no change in peak demand forecast for 2015, but it showed a 9.3% decrease in total sales in 2015.

- In its 2009 rate case, Duke adjusted earlier projections to reflect the impact its rate hike would have on customer usage. The revised estimates projected a slightly negative trend in retail sales over the next five years. And these projections were made in early 2009 – before the worst impacts of the current economic recession.

- Duke and Progress officially project growth rates far below the 2% PR claim. Progress expects its retail sales of electricity to increase by 1.4% annually through its 15-year planning period. Duke is projecting 1.5% through its 20-year planning horizon. NC WARN thinks these are typically inflated. But even if accurate, the margin below the 2% claim means the need for building new nuclear plants vanishes.

The utilities might protest that NC WARN’s analysis excludes wholesale growth, and we agree this is an important factor. For several years Duke Energy has been recruiting new outside customers to compensate for low sales within its service area. Outside customers became the justification for building the Cliffside coal‑power plant on the financial backs and health of Duke's North Carolina customers.

Now Duke is proposing to do the same with its Lee Station nuclear project, which would lead to huge rate hikes for North Carolina customers while jobs and tax base benefits would be created in South Carolina.

In the late 1970s, the utilities were hyper‑eager to build nuclear power plants, claiming huge growth in electricity sales forecasts. But Duke and Progress later canceled nine reactor projects underway in the Carolinas and soaked customers for $100s of millions in "stranded costs."

Progress, Duke and their cohorts need to become honest by aligning their prodigious PR with their formal documents. As a member of the Energy Policy Council’s Baseload Committee, I presented the above numbers – without contest by utility officials.

As energy economist John Blackburn said, “North Carolina should not gamble billions of dollars based on past and future numbers showing in the IRPs, especially when we have better and cheaper alternatives that can be implemented much more quickly and with far less financial risk.”

8. "When did that become what the conversation was about?" you say?

When you responded to my post that said exactly that in a most explicit manner, "1.8 gigawatts in 3 months. In one relatively small country that has the supply chain and trained personnel in place. That gives a good indicator of what is possible with renewables."

11. Lol...

so what you're saying is that when you shift a conversation... all future comments must match your notion of what the conversation is really about?

You say the sky is green and I correct you that it's blue... and you challenge me for changing the conversation from the established subject of the green sky?

A number that is substantially lower than the preceding quarter cannot be an indicator of the capacity of a system (because the capacity is clearly higher than that). The reality is just what I said... the wildly fluctuating number tells us far more about the demand-shifting impact of inconsistent governmental policy than it tells us about the capacity of the system.

12. The same response

Does the fact that there are financial incentives involved change anything when the discussion is about the capability of a supply chain and labor force to deliver change to our energy system?

I don't think so. No matter how large the incentives nuclear can't ramp up production and bring dozens of reactors next year, or the next or the next or the next of the next or the next or the next or the next of the next or the next or the next or the next of the next...

15. You didn't "correct" anything Baggins.

You tried to divert the topic away from the fact that, "No matter how large the incentives nuclear can't ramp up production and bring dozens of reactors next year, or the next or the next or the next of the next or the next or the next or the next of the next or the next or the next or the next of the next......"

16. Of course I did.

The Q1 number can't say anything about the capacity of the system because the month immediately prior was much higher. In fact that one month was much higher than the entire first quarter. That number might say something about capacity (though it too is a testament to the impact of expiring incentives).

You can't defend your position so... you repeat it. We've all seen the gyrations in their install numbers over the last few years... you and I both know that I'm correct... but you can't bring yourself to say it.

You tried to divert the topic away from the fact that...

So now what you're saying is... my post #3 was a prophetic attempt to divert the topic away from what you would post in #4?

19. And yet still the truth remains...

"No matter how large the incentives nuclear can't ramp up production and bring dozens of reactors next year, or the next or the next or the next of the next or the next or the next or the next of the next or the next or the next or the next of the next......"